From: Natasha V. More(f/k/a/Nancie Clark) (flexeon@primenet.com)
Date: Wed Jan 22 1997 - 23:32:51 MST
At 09:30 PM 1/21/97 +0000, Kathryn Aegis wrote:
>Michael Wilk:
>>Ok, sorry, I don't get this at all. The original quote about not living
>>forever just sounded stupid, this variation sounds vindictive.
>
>Well, it wasn't meant to be. I simply parallelled her logic into
>another statement. I happen to be a model, so can we drop the PC
>accusations please?
Good point Katheryn. I am also a model, as well as having been contestant
in beauty contests in high school and college. And the latter, from my
memory bank, is about looking good, walking nicely, and maintaining an
alluring quality. (Ho hum)
The humor of this piece was not poking fun at pretty ladies. The humor
referenced immortality and the view that one cannot achieve what one don't
already have: one cannot live forever if one isn't living forever.
Now, I agree with Lyle's interpretation:
> I would not live forever, because we shouldn't live forever.
> [Why shouldn't we? Because --] If we were supposed to
> live forever, then we would, but in fact we can't. Therefore
> we aren't supposed to.
> [Conclusion] That's why I wouldn't live forever.
However, "should" and "supposed to" are not references that I feel
comfortable with because *who* should and *who* supposes. This line of
thinking keeps us stagnant and accepting a prescribed fate, rather than
working towards changing or creating our fate.
And, further:
Dan Fabulich:
>>chromosome has little to do with intelligence, but more to do with
>>social stereotyping which might discourage women from displaying or
>>making public use of their intelligence. This has no validity in a
>>debate whatsoever, but it is my opinion. Carry on. :)
And, again Katheryn:
>Because your opinion is well supported by studies and social
>theorists (already discussed ad infinitum), I would urge you not to
>be so quick to throw it away as having no validity in this debate.
>This point also quite naturally stems from your incisive path of
>reasoning that preceded it.
On another point, I'm not sure that any one discipline purports more
geniuses than another, although science certainly rates quite high. In the
art world the term "genius" is bandied around right and left, and with good
reason. Just listen to the academy awards, or a hisory books or biographies
about Picasso, Manet, Monet, Rembrant, da Vinci, Lizst, Stravinsky, Hans,
Mozart, Glass, Brahms, Wagner, Gertrude Stein, Dante Alighieri, Brando,
Meryl Streep, Woody Allen, Man Ray, Vincent Van Gogh, Camilla, Salvadore
Dali, Ayn Rand, Michelangelo, Georgia O'Keefe, Cleopatra, Lucille Ball,
Martha Grahm, Charlie Chapin, Kurosawa ... this is just to name a few.
There have been many striking and articulate posts which analyse the genius
issue "Re: Genius and Y chromosomes" this month on this list. Are we rehashing?
Natasha Vita More [f/k/a Nancie Clark]
http://www.primenet.com/~flexeon
Exemplar Art Exhibition: http://www.primenet.com/~flexeon/galley.htm
* * * * * * * * * *
"What is genius—but the power of expressing a new individuality?"
Elizabeth Barrett Browning (1806–61)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:44:03 MST